Michelle Young, pregnant mom, murdered Part 15.

[jake]

To the point and spot on Chico. There is a reason JY can't be bothered to tell the police who all had keys to that house...or who might have had a reason to harm Michelle.

Howdy,

There is something I have been wondering about. Maybe those with legal expertise can enlighten us?

I have heard in some cases of immunity being granted to a reluctant witness, thus forcing him to testify to a grand jury or face contempt.

I don't know if it is ever done in a murder case, especially not for a person who might be a prime suspect. Can anybody help?

--Jake

 

[scandi]

Good Morning Charlie, I'm glad to see you back too. I've been thinking about you hoping all is well, which I was sure it was

I'm wondering how we know not all items were listed on the inventory? Any ideas? Happy Scandi

 

[jake]

Bood Morning Charlie, I'm glad to see you back too. I've been thinking about you hoping all is well, which I was sure it was

I'm wondering how we know not all items were listed on the inventory? Any ideas? Happy Scandi

Howdy,

I'm wondering, too. The public inventory? Maybe the cops would hide some things. But I am under the impression that the cops would have to give the custodian of the house (Jason's sister) an itemized list of every item removed from the house. Maybe not.

--Jake

 

[raisincharlie]

Howdy,

There is something I have been wondering about. Maybe those with legal expertise can enlighten us?

I have heard in some cases of immunity being granted to a reluctant witness, thus forcing him to testify to a grand jury or face contempt.

I don't know if it is ever done in a murder case, especially not for a person who might be a prime suspect. Can anybody help?

--Jake

Jake,

This is done in murder cases - but not with a suspect or person of interest. The 5th ammendment protections would apply to the suspect/person of interest. However, the DA does employ this technique for reluctant and/or hostile witnesses. The most recent I can think of quickly would be in the Vitale case where the alleged murderer's girlfriend was taken before a grand jury and required to testify. The reason being that it kept her from being able to change her testimony when the trial came up. It does happen and the most likely reason is to lock a person into their testimony for impeachment purposes if they change it at trial. An effective tool.

ETA - immunity is not always a given in exchange for testimony.

 

[raisincharlie]

Good Morning Charlie, I'm glad to see you back too. I've been thinking about you hoping all is well, which I was sure it was

I'm wondering how we know not all items were listed on the inventory? Any ideas? Happy Scandi

Scandi,

How we know that not all items are posted on an inventory is that at the end of the inventory a line must be drawn with the words "Nothing Follows" in between the line. This is required when there are no further items to prevent other items from being added to the inventory sheet. If those words do not exist at the bottom, there is more to the inventory. You will also note the inventory sheets are marked page _ of _ pages.

ETA - the 12/01/06 warrant is an example.

 

[scandi]

Hi Jake, For the most part I believe that our judicial system has honest people making up its force. So I wouldn't use the word 'hide', but maybe 'exclude' certain info to keep that edge on their side.

We know so little now, and it only makes sense they have withheld info on purpose , if in doing that it will help them solve the case. For instance last night we were discussing the possibility that during the struggle we have been told took place, the 3 wedding photos might have been thrown, and I thought there was a possibility the corner of a frame could have caused that 1/4 inch laceration on Michelle's left thumb. Glass could have broken too, but they excluded any particulars on info like this. So nothing was said about the condition of anything found.

Leaving items off the list on purpose, I don't know. I don't think the page numbers added up correctly on either the AR or some of those SW's. The AR will have addendum pages which are not made public, but as to the SW's I don't know how much they can withhold about them. Just like the 911 call which by law in that county allows it to be made public. Yet it had parts deleted, and we don't know if there is a supplemental tape when Meredith was talking to the Sheriff's officer responding to the scene. That is still under wraps.

Are you saying that LE is looking at another person in the case Jake that is a possible witness and also is a prime suspect? Like a coconspirator?

 

[scandi]

Thanks Charlie, I didn't know that about the line at the bottom.

With the GF in the Vitaly case, since she took the 5th I guess, there was no testimony, hence there would be no purjury at trial. Did she testify at trial?

 

[jilly]

Scandi,

How we know that not all items are posted on an inventory is that at the end of the inventory a line must be drawn with the words "Nothing Follows" in between the line. This is required when there are no further items to prevent other items from being added to the inventory sheet. If those words do not exist at the bottom, there is more to the inventory. You will also note the inventory sheets are marked page _ of _ pages.

ETA - the 12/01/06 warrant is an example.

Very clever RC! Glad to see you back!

 

[raisincharlie]

Thanks Charlie, I didn't know that about the line at the bottom.

With the GF in the Vitaly case, since she took the 5th I guess, there was no testimony, hence there would be no purjury at trial. Did she testify at trial?

Jenna testified at the grand jury and at trial. At trial she did try to deny or change a few things which were refuted by Jewett the second she did it. Ths his taking her to a grand jury proved to be the correct move.

I believe in this case we will find there have been witnesses that have appeared before the grand jury for the very same reason - JMO but the silence in this case and the hidden identities screams that some of these folks have indeed been called in to testify. Witnesses at a grand jury proceeding cannot speak about anything said or even that they were called before the gj. I do believe we will find out that the young lady with Michelle on Thursday, at a minimum, has gone before a gj for much the same reason Jenna was called in. JMO

 

[jake]

Hi Jake, For the most part I believe that our judicial system has honest people making up its force. So I wouldn't use the word 'hide', but maybe 'exclude' certain info to keep that edge on their side.

We know so little now, and it only makes sense they have withheld info on purpose , if in doing that it will help them solve the case. For instance last night we were discussing the possibility that during the struggle we have been told took place, the 3 wedding photos might have been thrown, and I thought there was a possibility the corner of a frame could have caused that 1/4 inch laceration on Michelle's left thumb. Glass could have broken too, but they excluded any particulars on info like this. So nothing was said about the condition of anything found.

Leaving items off the list on purpose, I don't know. I don't think the page numbers added up correctly on either the AR or some of those SW's. The AR will have addendum pages which are not made public, but as to the SW's I don't know how much they can withhold about them. Just like the 911 call which by law in that county allows it to be made public. Yet it had parts deleted, and we don't know if there is a supplemental tape when Meredith was talking to the Sheriff's officer responding to the scene. That is still under wraps.

Are you saying that LE is looking at another person in the case Jake that is a possible witness and also is a prime suspect? Like a coconspirator?

Howdy,

You're right. I should have chosen a better word than "hide". "Exclude" is a good word. I think I was thinking "hide" from the killer.

Another suspect? I don't know of anyone else being looked at, nor anything about a conspiracy. I believe I am though looking at the possibility of two persons being involved, as in a conspiracy, but I doubt Jason is one of them.

I believe I am trying to think of someone who would hate Michelle enough to beat her to death. Or, it could be someone who feared her conversations with the therapist enough to put a halt to her visits. But I don't know what Michelle could tell the therapist that would put someone else in mortal danger.

--Jake

 

[raisincharlie]

Very clever RC! Glad to see you back!

SOP

Nice to be back

 

[scandi]

Jake, I see that is a key thing to do right now, explore who it is that was threatened enough by her to kill her, and in such a vicious manner.

I think it was done by a novice killer, as the killing was not done in an easy way. Like they said on TV, it was though they were trying to anyalate her totally and that shows a hot and wild anger towards her IMHO.

Who wanted her dead that bad?

 

[Kadie]

Hi everyone!

More great ideas and info from all of you. Great discussion.

Wonder when we will hear something new?

 

[Kadie]

Who wanted her dead that bad?

Great question!

 

[raisincharlie]

Great question!

Yes, an excellent question. Remember that old saying "there is a very fine line between love and hate" ? Someone stepped over that line and it was someone close enough to Michelle that a therapist for some reason has information relevant to a murder investigation.

The next logical question is, who did Michelle know well enough to give information about to a therapist, information which turns out to be relevent to a murder investigation?

Interesting concept...

Hope you are doing well today Kadie.


ETA - another interesting saying - "Coment is free - facts are sacred."

 

[jake]

Yes, an excellent question. Remember that old saying "there is a very fine line between love and hate" ? Someone stepped over that line and it was someone close enough to Michelle that a therapist for some reason has information relevant to a murder investigation.

The next logical question is, who did Michelle know well enough to give information about to a therapist, information which turns out to be relevent to a murder investigation?

Interesting concept...

Hope you are doing well today Kadie.


ETA - another interesting saying - "Coment is free - facts are sacred."

Howdy,

I think we need to keep in mind too that Michelle didn't visit with just any therapist, but one who specialized in sex matters. That might be significant, IMO.

Combine that with the idea that she possibly told the therapist something that would put another person in mortal danger. That would be....what?
Can anyone help? An affair? Possibly, depending on who the other person was. Rape? Maybe.

Possibly Michelle did not give the therapist a name to go with whatever she told her? If so, then the cops would know about an event but have no name to go with it? Just thinking out loud...

--Jake

 

[Niner]

snip...
And if Cassidy heard him and walked out into the MBr, it would put further stress on him if he thought she would be spending the night somewhere else as we heard was planned.

WHAT??? WHERE?? Scandi - missed that!!?? explain please?!

But, libraries over there may operate differently to libraries over here, so I am only speaking from what I know from my side of the planet Over here, you just walk in and say you want to use the internet, pay and on you get.

It would be interesting to compare how libraries in different countries operate though

Sami - don't 'see' anywhere that someone answered you on this - so I shall...
Here in Placer County, California - no paying at my library! All is free! just sign up... or walk over to an empty PC!

 

[raisincharlie]

Howdy,

I think we need to keep in mind too that Michelle didn't visit with just any therapist, but one who specialized in sex matters. That might be significant, IMO.

Combine that with the idea that she possibly told the therapist something that would put another person in mortal danger. That would be....what?
Can anyone help? An affair? Possibly, depending on who the other person was. Rape? Maybe.

Possibly Michelle did not give the therapist a name to go with whatever she told her? If so, then the cops would know about an event but have no name to go with it? Just thinking out loud...

--Jake

I'm not willing to assume that Michelle's conversations placed anyone in mortal danger except herself.

An affair, my opinion, Michelle was aware of multiple affairs that her husband had or was having. Rape is possible, but I would suggest it is also possible her own husband could be the culprit as easily as anyone else. Given the proximity of the conversations with the therapist with all the known circumstances going on in Michelle's life at the time, the odds are higher that the problem lay within her own realm or home rather than outside it in my opinion. I believe both the therapist and LE have a name.

 

[jake]

I'm not willing to assume that Michelle's conversations placed anyone in mortal danger except herself.

An affair, my opinion, Michelle was aware of multiple affairs that her husband had or was having. Rape is possible, but I would suggest it is also possible her own husband could be the culprit as easily as anyone else. Given the proximity of the conversations with the therapist with all the known circumstances going on in Michelle's life at the time, the odds are higher that the problem lay within her own realm or home rather than outside it in my opinion. I believe both the therapist and LE have a name.

Howdy,

Actually, I was suggesting--hope I don't get beaten up for this--that Michelle might be having an affair. But I don't see how that could lead "the other man" to kill her, so I don't think that lead balloon will fly far.

About a name....it seems to me she might withhold a name until she was confortable with the therapist. This assumes, of course, only one visit or so.

--Jake

 

[Scout]

Howdy,

I think we need to keep in mind too that Michelle didn't visit with just any therapist, but one who specialized in sex matters. That might be significant, IMO.

Combine that with the idea that she possibly told the therapist something that would put another person in mortal danger. That would be....what?
Can anyone help? An affair? Possibly, depending on who the other person was. Rape? Maybe.

Possibly Michelle did not give the therapist a name to go with whatever she told her? If so, then the cops would know about an event but have no name to go with it? Just thinking out loud...

--Jake

You're mistaken, Jake. Kimball Jane Sargent specializes in gender identity issues, not sex issues. There is a difference. Michelle seemed happy being a wife and mother. There's no evidence that she was looking to fill her needs outside her marriage, and I've heard nothing to suggest that she believed herself to be a man trapped in a woman's body, expressed any interest in knowing what it was like to be a man, or ever made any attempts to pass herself off as a man. I wonder if the same can be said for ol' Jason.